Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Santosh Kumar vs East Central Railway on 1 February, 2024
1 OA 34/2024 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA OA/050/0034/2024 & MA 39/2024 Date of Order :01.02.2024 COR AM HON'BLE MR. S. K. SINHA, ...ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HON'BLE MR. A. P. SINGH, ...............JUDICIAL MEMBER Santosh Kumar, Male, aged about 28 years, Son of Late Choubey Singh and Late Munni Devi, resident of Village Village-Alipur Bihta, PS--
Salimpur, District-Patna-803202.
District .......... Applicant.
- By Advocate : Shri Shekhar Singh.
-Versus Versus-
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali-844101.
Vaishali 844101.
2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali Vaishali--
844101.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur Division, Patna-- 801503.
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur Danapur-801503.
5. The Station Manager, Patna Sahib Railway Station, East Central Railway, Patna-800008.
Patna ......... Respondents.
By Advocate :- Shri Rana Randhir Singh, ld. A ASC O R D E R [ ORAL ] Per- Sunil Kumar Sinha, Member (Admn.) OA is at notice stage hearing. Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, ld. ASC has appeared on behalf of respondents having received advance copy of OA.
2. Applicant licant has preferred this OA to quash and set aside thee order dated 26.10.2021 rejecting the claim of applicant for 2 OA 34/2024 compassionate appointment and to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the applicant on compassionate ground.
3. Applicant's father a railway employ employee had died in harness on 26.04.1994 and applicant's mother was given appointment on compassionate ground in ECR. She was posted at Waiting Room Attendant at Patna Sahib Railway Station. On 21 21.12.2003 .12.2003 applicant's mother also died in harnesss leaving beh behind two children, daughter and the applicant. At the time of death of his mother, applicant was a minor and when he attained majority, he submitted application for compassionate appointment. He also passed out matriculation examination in year 2015. The respondent department directed him in 2016 to submit requisite document for consideration of his case for CGA. Applicant Applicant complied with the instructio instruction n of the respondents department but when hen he got no response from the respondents he approached this Tribunal inn OA 453/2020 which was disposed of on 04.01.2021 giving iving liberty to applicant to file representation and directing respondents to decide the representation so submitted within three months months and communicate the decision to the applicant. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer passed a speaking order on 26.10.2021 rejecting the claim of applicant on the gro ground of discrepancy in date of birth of the applicant.
4. Heard. Counsel for applicant M Mr. r. Shekhar Singh submits that respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant mainly on the ground that applicant was born after eight months and 29 days of 3 OA 34/2024 death of his father and that an affidavit filed by applicant's sister shows applicant's age as fourteen years in year 2004 whereas the age of the applicant as per his matriculation certificate in 2004 should have been nine years. The issue involved in this case is date of birth of the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant submits that Hon'ble Supreme upreme Court has settled the law that date of birth in Matriculation atriculation certificate should be considered for appointment and other service related matters.
matter . Learned counsel for applicant presses the OA and requests to quash and set aside the order and direct tthe he respondents to consider the case of the applicant on merit and not reject the case on the ground of discrepancy in date of birth.
5. Counsel for respondents submits that applicant has claimed that he first submitted application in year 2013 which is nott traceable. He request that OA may be disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of applicant for compassionate appointment in terms of extent rules/guidelines.
6. Considered the submissions. Speaking order passed by respondent no. 4 is reproduced herein below ::-
"Speaking Speaking order Sub :- Compliance of the order dated 04.01.2021 passed in OA No. 453/2020, Santosh Kumar-vs vs-Union Union of India and Others. Before the Hon'ble CAT/Patna.
-------
In compliance of the order dated 04.01.2021, passed in OA No. 453/2020, the undersigned was gone through the representation of the applicant dated 02.02.2021 along with the judgment thereon.4 OA 34/2024
All the relevant papers pertaining to the case has been exam examined ined and observed as under.
1. The applicant submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 07.10.2016 after 13 years of death of the employee (Died on 21.10.2003). After Welfare Inspectors report it came to the notice of Railway that the applica applicant nt failed to submit any authentic documents to substantiate his claim. As the candidature of the applicant was not genuinely proved and he submitted the application after long period (13 yrs. After death), the competent authority rejected his claim.
2. The applicant plicant filed OA no. 453/2020 before the Hon'ble Tribunal which was disposed with following following- "Accordingly, this OA is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to give representation within two weeks, to appropriate authority of the respondents and if any such representation is preferred by the applicant within time the respondents shall consider and take decision thereon within three months, to be counted from date of receipt of the representation and shall communicate the decision taken thereon to the applicant."
3. The Welfare Inspector deputed for enquiry after the representation of the applicant dated 02.02.2021. the Welfare Inspector submitted his report on 21.10.2021 on the basis of which mother of the applicant (Railway employee) died on 21.10.2003. The applicant has also submitted an application after attaining majority on 09.12.2014 but following points are objectionable.
The father of the applicant died on 26.04.1994 while date of birth of the applicant is 25.01.1995. It seems he was born after 08 monthsths 29 days of death of his father. An affidavit affirmed by Sulekha Kumari (Daughter of the deceased employee) which speaks the age of her younger brother 14 yrs in 2004. However, the age of the applicant as per his matriculation certificate, in 2004 shou should ld have been 09 yrs.
The first application of the applicant is not traceable in the official record.
In view of the above, facts the claim of the applicant is not beyond doubt, hence the claim can be considered if proper documents are submitted for the abo above ve dubious claim regarding age.
Accordingly, his representation dated 02.02.2021 is disposed of.
(Surjeet Singh ) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer East Central Railway, Danapur"
7. As evident from the speaking order, a Welfare Inspector of the Railway had conducted inquiry on applicant's representation on 02.01.2021 in which it was mentioned that applicant had submitted an application after attain attaining ing majority on 09.12.2014.5 OA 34/2024
Responden espondents have not taken the report of Welfare Inspector in consideration and rejected the applicant's case on the ground that applicant's date of birth in the matriculation certificate was at varian with the affidavit filed by applicant's sister. Hon'ble variance Supr Supreme Court in the Criminal Appeal Nos. 1408 1408-1409 1409 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Cr.) Nos. 9992 9992-9993 9993 of 2016) held that the Matriculation certificate has higher status over any other document in deciding the date of birth. Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case relied lied upon judgment of Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein a two Judge Bench laid down the guidelines for conducting the age determination inquiry as follows :-
"32. "Age determination inquiry" contemplated under Section 77-- A of the Actt read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court needs eds to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court needs to obtain the he birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents).........."-
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and legal aspects we find that speaking order is not in accordance with the settled law. Hence, the speaking order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P/10) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the 6 OA 34/2024 applicant on merit within a period of four months accepting applicant's date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate.
9. With the aforesaid direction OA stands disposed of. MA, pending if any also stands disposed of accordingly.
[Ajay Pratap Singh ] [ Sunil Kumar Sinha ] Member (J) Member (A) Pkl/